Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
PHLspecial
Topic Author
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:54 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
A few two cents:
1. Public Transit in US is a mess mainly due to how spread out things are. It also has to do with urban planning - many metro areas has well over a single employment center (CBD). For example, LA has downtown plus all those things on Wilshire, not to mention all those industrial/business parks in the suburbs built around highway interchanges. Houston? Downtown, Uptown/Galleria, TMC, then there are suburban business parks along major highways also, which...
2. Make mass transit planning hard. Using the Houston example, sure, I can take the express bus to downtown if I work there. But what if I want to commute from SW Houston to Energy Corridor? Back to the car I go.
3. Even in Japan the car ownership rate spike once you go outside of core of Tokyo metro area/Keihanshin metro area. Mid-size city like Sapporo or Fukuoka? People just drive everywhere. More rural cities? Public transit are losing money left and right.
4. If you have to compare, let say, Japan to USA, you can see the trend of public transit use in Tokaido corridor (well, except Nagoya thanks to Toyota) comparable to NE (BosWash) corridor. Except, well, something like 60% of Japan's population live near Tokyo, Nagoya, or Osaka; while BosWash contain maybe 15% of US population. And don't get me started on Seoul (50% of SK population).


Right I expect as you leave a city center you will need to use a car. I'm not against cars. I just want less traffic inside cities.
So what I understand is the U.S. is trying to use more TOD practices to encourage transit use. That would take 20 years to full be used.
 
PHLspecial
Topic Author
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:55 pm

rfields5421 wrote:
Derico wrote:
Most North American cities "grew" after WWII which was the era of the automobile. All the infrastructure went to accommodate cars and low density housing in suburbs so most of the metropolitan areas cannot be economically covered by mass transit. Now it's too late to do urban planning so basically most US cities have been "stuck" with the car and hours of commuting for 20+ years and will be stuck with it for sure for another 20 more.


Actually, after WWII, there was a planned conspiracy to eliminate public transportation focused on urban rail/ trolley's, etc. The lines were bought up by the conspirators and shut down. With the focus moving to automobile sales, fuel sales, tire sales and bus lines as the 'poor' person's alternative.

Standard Oil, General Motors and Goodyear Tire & Rubber entered a plea agreement of guilty of such a conspiracy in federal court in the very early 1950s.

But by then it was too late to protect what was a fairly decent mass transit system in most American cities.

Also, mass developments became the popular, like Levittown.in 1947 and the second one in 1952. For the first time, single family homes were designed with an automobile parking spot in mind.

Also, it's not 20 years, more like 50+.

I'm surprised there is not an attack on Public transit now from oil and car manufacturer companies today
 
kalvado
Posts: 2854
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Fri Jun 12, 2020 2:59 pm

PHLspecial wrote:
kalvado wrote:
No, one bus with 5x axle loading causes 5^4=625 more damage than a single car. That's the trick - heavy vehicles have disproportional effect on the road, hence a lot of regulations on heavy trucks.
Streets don't see constant flow 18-wheelers on a regular basis, not streets in the center of a city, but buses create comparable effect.

Let's enjoy sitting in traffic in center cities without buses. 5 cars is longer than 1 bus. Dude I get you hate public transit

No, but I hate idiots - and those seem to be in control of public transit.
I am just showing some of consequences the general public seems to be unaware of. Fares do not even start to cover costs. Roads are hurt by heavy vehicles. Rail construction costs are over the roof.
Those are the factors one needs to consider when talking about transit. You're right, NYC commute is impossible by car. The complex transit cross-subsidisation mess is not sustainable as well.
Lets look for broader solutions, not just money - more money - even more money we don't have to be thrown into the problem!!!111
 
apodino
Posts: 3926
Joined: Mon Apr 04, 2005 2:11 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Fri Jun 12, 2020 8:25 pm

kalvado wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:
kalvado wrote:
No, one bus with 5x axle loading causes 5^4=625 more damage than a single car. That's the trick - heavy vehicles have disproportional effect on the road, hence a lot of regulations on heavy trucks.
Streets don't see constant flow 18-wheelers on a regular basis, not streets in the center of a city, but buses create comparable effect.

Let's enjoy sitting in traffic in center cities without buses. 5 cars is longer than 1 bus. Dude I get you hate public transit

No, but I hate idiots - and those seem to be in control of public transit.
I am just showing some of consequences the general public seems to be unaware of. Fares do not even start to cover costs. Roads are hurt by heavy vehicles. Rail construction costs are over the roof.
Those are the factors one needs to consider when talking about transit. You're right, NYC commute is impossible by car. The complex transit cross-subsidisation mess is not sustainable as well.
Lets look for broader solutions, not just money - more money - even more money we don't have to be thrown into the problem!!!111


In Boston there is an old trolley line called the Mattapan line, which runs for about 2 and a half miles or so from Ashmont (The end of the heavy rail portion of the red line) to Mattapan. The rolling stock used on this line still dates back to the 1940's and as such it cant keep going forever. Numerous options were looked at to replace the service and it was determined that it would be more expensive to convert it to a Bus Rapid Transit and maintain it as such than to leave it as a light rail line. The conclusion I draw from this is that while rail construction has an initial investment, once its built the cost to operate and maintain a rail service is cheaper than that of a bus based system. (Not to mention more environmentally friendly as well)
 
PHLspecial
Topic Author
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Fri Jun 12, 2020 8:32 pm

kalvado wrote:
PHLspecial wrote:
kalvado wrote:
No, one bus with 5x axle loading causes 5^4=625 more damage than a single car. That's the trick - heavy vehicles have disproportional effect on the road, hence a lot of regulations on heavy trucks.
Streets don't see constant flow 18-wheelers on a regular basis, not streets in the center of a city, but buses create comparable effect.

Let's enjoy sitting in traffic in center cities without buses. 5 cars is longer than 1 bus. Dude I get you hate public transit

No, but I hate idiots - and those seem to be in control of public transit.
I am just showing some of consequences the general public seems to be unaware of. Fares do not even start to cover costs. Roads are hurt by heavy vehicles. Rail construction costs are over the roof.
Those are the factors one needs to consider when talking about transit. You're right, NYC commute is impossible by car. The complex transit cross-subsidisation mess is not sustainable as well.
Lets look for broader solutions, not just money - more money - even more money we don't have to be thrown into the problem!!!111

Okay fair enough. In cities that already have rail a lot of them are trying to use TOD to further have a better case for rail. Instead of industry parks near highways putting them near rail helps. Living in Philly I see quite a few industry office buildings struggle to keep the offices filled. I think building them at rail stations would benefit companies and public transit.
 
Kent350787
Posts: 1408
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:06 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 12:37 am

apodino wrote:
In Boston there is an old trolley line called the Mattapan line, which runs for about 2 and a half miles or so from Ashmont (The end of the heavy rail portion of the red line) to Mattapan. The rolling stock used on this line still dates back to the 1940's and as such it cant keep going forever. Numerous options were looked at to replace the service and it was determined that it would be more expensive to convert it to a Bus Rapid Transit and maintain it as such than to leave it as a light rail line. The conclusion I draw from this is that while rail construction has an initial investment, once its built the cost to operate and maintain a rail service is cheaper than that of a bus based system. (Not to mention more environmentally friendly as well)


Mind you, the Green line never seems much better. :)

My city (Sydney) once had 181 miles of street trackage for trams, but the lines were fully closed by 1961, and replaced by buses. A route with maybe 8 miles was opened earlier this year, running down the main street of the downtown area. It's been interesting to see what goes around comes around, and there has been a recognition of the underlying subsidy to road transit, as well as the more explicit public transit subsidy (farebox only accounts for around 40% of public transit operational costs)

The transport expansion here is a combination of toll roads and underground Metro lines. A driverless north-south line will be completed in the next couple of years expanding capacity into downtown (where car commuting is actively discouraged through removal of on-street parking and levies on parking garages), and then a new western line. These expansions are being funded, partially, through value capture from building developers.

But public transit isn't the best option (dispersed destinations for example), so road tunnels are also being added.
S340/J31/146-300/F27/F50/Nord 262/Q100/200/E195/733/734/738/744/762/763/77W/788/789/320/321/332/333/345/359
 
Kent350787
Posts: 1408
Joined: Wed May 28, 2008 12:06 am

Re: Buses, tramways, elevated heavy rail, subways and high speed rail

Sat Jun 13, 2020 12:43 am

ArchGuy1 wrote:
A monorail system might be another idea for a public transportation system, and cities like Addis Ababa, Ethiopia could use such a system.


The costs of tunnelling have plummeted over the last couple of decades. Most road and rail expansion in my city is underground.
S340/J31/146-300/F27/F50/Nord 262/Q100/200/E195/733/734/738/744/762/763/77W/788/789/320/321/332/333/345/359
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6270
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 1:46 am

PHLspecial wrote:
I'm surprised there is not an attack on Public transit now from oil and car manufacturer companies today


Basically, the oil, tire and automobile industry have already won the war. They succeeded in changing the mindset of most of Americans that they NEEDED a car, and NEEDED the freedom to drive when and where they wanted.

No way any mass transit project will threaten those industries now. Airlines do more today, such as Southwest providing some small funding through their political action committee against building high speed rail between Dallas and Houston. Some airlines are also assisting the battle against California High Speed Rail. Maybe some local funding from auto and oil interests.

They have to be careful and not come out directly against mass transit, but they can surely fund some of the ecological arguments against mass transit, along with the property owner objections.

Back in the 40-50's when people started to demand roads from the suburbs to work and cities, the land usage was not as significant as it is today. Any new project, even a new toll road, comes up against a lot of objections from land owners. Basically building anything is going to require moving home owners, farmers, businesses, etc. And people do not like having their property taken for a government project.

I remember the battles against the Interstate Highways. Think of all the small businesses from Oklahoma City to San Bernardino, CA that have gone out of business with I-40 basically replacing Route 66. Lots of small towns dried up when the interstate highway bypassed downtown. People stopped and slept, ate, bought stuff because it took so long to travel the route. Today, one can cross the nation without a single stop light on the interstate. Only stopping every XXXX miles for fuel.

Wall Drug Store in Wall, SD was made famous by providing services to travelers. It is one of very few 'tourist traps' that has managed to stay alive to this day.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 11:14 am

LabQuest wrote:
There's no reason to have bullet train service from New York to Dallas when its still going to take 3x the time and cost more than a southwest ticket.

:checkmark:
NY to Dallas is 685 mi = 1,100 km air distance. There are limits what a train can do. And high speed rail is expensive.

cpd wrote:
Design the trains locally as well, perhaps even build them locally too, then export them.

You can't shift design, but the building of the trains is often done in the country who gives the order. It has to be a big order, of course.

kalvado wrote:
One problem is that "invest" is not the end of the story. US average cost of public transportation is $1 per passenger-mile

Do you have a source for that?

kalvado wrote:
all transit systems require subsidy - in NYC fares cover 50% of MTA costs (with tax free fuel). Our 1M area local transit takes $4 subsidy per $1.50 fare, again with the tax free fuel.

If it's supposed to be profitable a network would be reduced to trains, trams and some buses. That's a problem for mobility reduced people. But maybe one can discuss only one bus/ hour in areas of less demand. Let the rest take the bicycle to the train station.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 11:47 am

LCDFlight wrote:
(US views only)
The cost structure for public transit is frequently so ridiculous that it is cheaper to lease each rider a decent car.

Only for the rush hour or full day? What would be a half hour lease rate during rush hour?

kalvado wrote:
Now back to buses running on tax free fuel and having axle load 5x of a car (and road wear is proportional to 4th power of that)

Cars don't run on bus tyres.

c933103 wrote:
One thing with freight railroad is that they tend to be optimized toward heavy load and modest speed, according to my understanding, and it caused the slow speed of many passenger train services currently operated in the United States by Amtrak.

Most people don't drive goods trains. That's why they are neglected in public discussion, at least in Europe. I believe they are just as important as passenger trains, maybe even more. The US is better in that.
Most of Europe's rail gauge was chosen because two trains should fit together in a tunnel. Now all new tunnels are two tunnels with service tunnel in the middle. As if earlier lot's of people died in tunnel collisions. High speed logic. If that's what is desired Europe should change to broad gauge like India and have broader trains.
There are a lot of tracks in Germany which are on the capacity limit. I believe it's better to build separate two tracks for freight. They can share one tunnel and drive around cities. Who likes the noise of goods trains? The old tracks can be rebuild with more superelevation to allow passenger trains to drive at higher speed. In some curves with too extreme curve radii the passenger tracks need shifting/ tunnel is required.
That's much cheaper, gives nice window views and all the desired capacity expansion.
There is a forever under construction high speed line in Germany where finally this sense prevailed. (Mannheim-Basel, South of Offenburg for 33 km)
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Sokes
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 12:11 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
But there is no reason why you can't run containers at 100mph, while still being efficient, and no real reason why single rail cars can't be delivered to single customers in short order after leaving a main track. As mentioned, the last 10-20 miles could be done autonomously at a desent clip, even if you limit them to a fast walking pace.

Best regards
Thomas

Why would you want to transport containers with 100 mph/ 161 km/ h?
How to have an autonomous single rail car? Factories with rail access usually have lots of stuff to carry.

rfields5421 wrote:
Driving across rural northeast Texas one day about 8 years ago, my then 10 year old grandson commented that there seemed to be a decaying/ dying small town every 10-15 miles. I told him that's how things were setup, when a man, or horse, could walk 5-10 miles a day round trip to the town for business or buying something.

Transportation capability always significantly impacts how people live, where they live.

:checkmark:


rfields5421 wrote:
I remember the battles against the Interstate Highways. Think of all the small businesses from Oklahoma City to San Bernardino, CA that have gone out of business with I-40 basically replacing Route 66. Lots of small towns dried up when the interstate highway bypassed downtown. People stopped and slept, ate, bought stuff because it took so long to travel the route. Today, one can cross the nation without a single stop light on the interstate. Only stopping every XXXX miles for fuel.

:checkmark:
The question is always: Is a rail line profitable here? I believe that's wrong.
Infrastructure is the real wealth. Accordingly people adjust their life around it.


Kent350787 wrote:
A driverless north-south line will be completed in the next couple of years expanding capacity into downtown (where car commuting is actively discouraged through removal of on-street parking and levies on parking garages), and then a new western line. These expansions are being funded, partially, through value capture from building developers.

Unless there is tax financed infrastructure the value of land is just agricultural value. Georgism tries to tax land, but not what is built on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
You have a villa or you rent out ten flats on a 1500 square meter plot, the tax is the same.
Winston Churchill and Leo Tolstoy were both fans, but couldn't get it done. IIRC Japan in the Meiji restauration had it. IIRC one of Australia's states also had it early on. Interesting that Australia has it again. Or is it Sydney specific?
A lot of informations Wikipedia had are not there any more. I believe for such a dangerous idea a little censorship by certain interests is required.
I believe Sydney figured a smart way to finance it. I believe the same land owners who grumble today will be very pleased when they see how much more rent the infrastructure will achieve.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6270
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 2:50 pm

Sokes wrote:
rfields5421 wrote:
I remember the battles against the Interstate Highways. Think of all the small businesses from Oklahoma City to San Bernardino, CA that have gone out of business with I-40 basically replacing Route 66. Lots of small towns dried up when the interstate highway bypassed downtown. People stopped and slept, ate, bought stuff because it took so long to travel the route. Today, one can cross the nation without a single stop light on the interstate. Only stopping every XXXX miles for fuel.

:checkmark:
The question is always: Is a rail line profitable here? I believe that's wrong.
Infrastructure is the real wealth. Accordingly people adjust their life around it.


The little town where I grew up had some passenger rail service until about 1959 when KCS ended their once per day connection run from Shreveport to Hope, Arkansas to link up with the train from San Antonio to St Louis. Amtrak still runs (or ran, haven't checked in a few years) a daily train from San Antonio to St Louis. The wife and I have taken it from Dallas to Texarkana and back a couple times. We could use light rail to get to/ from the Dallas Union Station, but needed someone to pick us up/ drop us off in Texarkana.

That rail line through my hometown was built in the late 1800's for industrial purposes - to support logging the southern hardwood forests, and the sawmill in Stamps, AR that the owner of the rail road also owned. Passenger service was always a supplemental role. The road made more money hauling mail than it did passengers. Even when it expanded and eventually the Louisiana and Arkansas RR "bought" the KCS. Even the KCS flagship passenger train the "Southern Belle" from Kansas City to New Orleans was never a money maker.

I don't see mass transit across small town rural parts of the US as a viable option, nor do it see it in many other countries. Even in Europe and Japan - smaller rural areas simply do not have the population density to support mass transit rail. And as I noted earlier, the airlines were what really killed long haul rail, especially in the US.

I see some advertising of long distance rail in Europe. They have a good long distance system which was never subordinated to freight traffic. And face it, rail in the US was built on freight.

From Heathrow to Charles de Gaulle is the same distance as from Dallas Love to the county seat near my home town. I've taken rail from Paris to London and back. The rail passenger trip from Dallas to Texarkana took almost five hours. I can drive that distance a bit faster. Not in as much comfort as rail. Nor do I have to worry about construction delays and accidents.

People don't realize the SCALE of the United States. I'm driving 165 miles (265 km) round trip this afternoon/ evening to visit with my daughter and her family. In two and a half-weeks, the wife and I will be traveling over 3,000 miles on a trip from the Dallas area to visit a granddaughter who lives with her mother and newish step-father in Phoenix. Sure we could fly.

But we live full-time in an RV and enjoy the slow travel. The trip will take us 10 weeks with nice long stops in places to relax and enjoy.

One example is that Dallas is closer to St Louis, MO than to El Paso, TX. It's about the same distance to either city from Dallas as it is from London to Munich. My father remembers a sign before WWII in Texarkana at the Texas state line on highway US-67 which said "El Paso - 1,001 miles"

That was pre-interstate. Today from the Texas state line on I-30 to the New Mexico state line on I-10 is only 832 miles (1,339 km) I can travel that route by train, but it will take almost two days. It can be driven legally with fuel stops in about 13 hours.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2854
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 3:32 pm

Sokes wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
Now back to buses running on tax free fuel and having axle load 5x of a car (and road wear is proportional to 4th power of that)

Cars don't run on bus tyres.

That doesn't matter. Bigger tyres mitigate immediate damage to upper layer, but cracking and deeper layers damage is not that easy to mitigate
A non-US source for a change, http://www.nvfnorden.org/lisalib/getfil ... itemid=261 p.17


Sokes wrote:
kalvado wrote:
One problem is that "invest" is not the end of the story. US average cost of public transportation is $1 per passenger-mile

Do you have a source for that?

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.d ... 20NTST.pdf exhibit 6 on page 10 gives breakdown by type of transit. Some are cheaper, some more expensive; $1 is about average.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 6:30 pm

kalvado wrote:
Sokes wrote:
LCDFlight wrote:
Now back to buses running on tax free fuel and having axle load 5x of a car (and road wear is proportional to 4th power of that)

Cars don't run on bus tyres.

That doesn't matter. Bigger tyres mitigate immediate damage to upper layer, but cracking and deeper layers damage is not that easy to mitigate

Interesting, I didn't knew. I suppose it depends on the subsoil. If it's clay you are definitely right. On rock I doubt it. But then I assume roads are designed for buses/ trucks and not cars.

kalvado wrote:
Sokes wrote:
kalvado wrote:
One problem is that "invest" is not the end of the story. US average cost of public transportation is $1 per passenger-mile

Do you have a source for that?

https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.d ... 20NTST.pdf exhibit 6 on page 10 gives breakdown by type of transit. Some are cheaper, some more expensive; $1 is about average.

From your source, p. 14:
"fixed route bus (MB) systems are the most common form of public transit in the United States. With over 48 thousand vehicles operating during peak service (VOMS) and operating over 153 billion revenue hours (VRH) of service, MB is typically the most cost effective method of providing public transit in an urbanized area where building the necessary infrastructure for a rail network is impractical. Demand response (DR) is the second largest transit service type (26 thousand VOMS and almost 53 billion VRH) and is the main provider of service in rural and sparsely populated areas. Fixed route bus or rail service often uses DR as a support mode. Among rail modes, heavy rail (HR) systems are the most used (over 9 thousand VOMS and 33 billion VRH), with commuter (CR) and light rail (LR) close behind in terms of service provided. "

Obviously demand response is expensive. I never heard of this before. Can somebody expand?

I am shocked that commuter buses are supposed to be only 30% more expensive per passenger mile than heavy rail.

A streetcar is a tram in which the tracks are submerged in the road, no separate track. 1,41 $/ passenger mile. Extreme how expensive it is. But then beside traffic lights they stop I believe every 800 km to one km. Still strange. If it's so expensive one may as well use buses. I thought one uses trams because they are cheaper than buses if there is sufficient demand. A rather full bus should actually be quite cheap, even if it stops every 800m.

p.15/ 16:
The average trip length for heavy rail is 4,7 miles/ 7,5 km. In one hour there are 115 passenger trips. If I assume 22,5 km/ h average speed a train has on average 38 people sitting in it.
I know your source is government. Even though I find it very strange what they write.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
kalvado
Posts: 2854
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sat Jun 13, 2020 7:03 pm

Sokes wrote:
Interesting, I didn't knew. I suppose it depends on the subsoil. If it's clay you are definitely right. On rock I doubt it. But then I assume roads are designed for buses/ trucks and not cars.

It's a very long story. Apparently central street with constant traffic sees more wear than a dead-end residential street which gets 5 delivery vans a day and 2 trash collection trucks a week. More used roads have to be built to a higher standard, going all-car may mean a lot more pavement needed etc. My main point here is that tax-free transit doesn't contribute towards the road wear, which is never recognized as yet another subsidy towards public transportation.

Sokes wrote:
Obviously demand response is expensive. I never heard of this before. Can somebody expand?

I am shocked that commuter buses are supposed to be only 30% more expensive per passenger mile than heavy rail.

On-demand means para-transit, a service to disabled people. Public transit agencies are required to provide that service by law, and it is more like taxi which costs the same as a bus fare. No question that it is a huge cost hadicap, and that it is a social service which will never break even.

And another factor for transit is that they need to size buses for rush hour traffic, yet run most of the day. Also, rush hour is often directional, meaning return trips are mostly empty. So a bus may make 4 trips full (2 in the morning and 2 in the evening) and 10 mostly empty during the day. That again means that average load factor is low and undermines overall efficiency. However, few people would feel comfortable going to work and knowing that they cannot return home till the end of the day in case of an emergency.
Last, but not the least - cost of driver's time is not recognized. I may spend a while getting to and from work - but the difference between being in the back or in the driver seat is minimal.
Once you have a professional driver, however, you need to talk paycheck, benefits, hours - hours being specifically difficult as you cannot ask someone to work 2 hours on - 6 hours off - 2 hours on to match rush hour pattern.

Moral of the story: transit is a difficult subject...
 
Sokes
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:43 am

kalvado wrote:
On-demand means para-transit, a service to disabled people. Public transit agencies are required to provide that service by law, and it is more like taxi which costs the same as a bus fare. No question that it is a huge cost hadicap, and that it is a social service which will never break even.

It's pure social service. Why are these costs included in public transport?

kalvado wrote:
And another factor for transit is that they need to size buses for rush hour traffic, yet run most of the day. Also, rush hour is often directional, meaning return trips are mostly empty. So a bus may make 4 trips full (2 in the morning and 2 in the evening) and 10 mostly empty during the day. That again means that average load factor is low and undermines overall efficiency. However, few people would feel comfortable going to work and knowing that they cannot return home till the end of the day in case of an emergency.
Last, but not the least - cost of driver's time is not recognized. I may spend a while getting to and from work - but the difference between being in the back or in the driver seat is minimal.
Once you have a professional driver, however, you need to talk paycheck, benefits, hours - hours being specifically difficult as you cannot ask someone to work 2 hours on - 6 hours off - 2 hours on to match rush hour pattern.
Moral of the story: transit is a difficult subject...

I always wondered why there are no separate (longer) buses for rush hour traffic. The driver could switch bus depending on demand. Maybe overnight buses are supposed to be in a depot. Who would drive the second bus there? That's a pure assumption. The same I have observed with government run trains. Outside rush hour some were quite empty.
Concerning buses for rush hour: I read employers don't like to take people who were more than half year unemployed. IIRC there is increased risk such a person is not used to get up in the morning any more. Well, driving a bus in rush hour traffic may be a nice way to keep more than three months unemployed people busy. I don't know how long it takes to train a bus driver. Well, Elon Musk can design the bus. It should be safe enough.

I have seen a train depot of a minor, privately run railway in Germany. The depot was somewhere in the middle of the line length. Depending on traffic they would add or subtract some units on the train. Each unit has two Diesel engines (front and back. For flat lands other trains with only one engine would be used.). Joint units can communicate with each other.

Image

Image

source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cate ... e_Waldbahn

see also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadler_Regio-Shuttle_RS1

Why is it difficult for the government, but not for private players to add/ subtract units?
These minor lines are auctioned in Germany for 20 years or so. The government describes the required standards and seating capacity. Ticket price is also fixed. The party who demands the least subsidy gets the contract.

If your government source is to be believed and heavy rail in the US has an average occupancy of 38 passengers, this might be the right electrical train for you:

Image
source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardie ... dergalerie

However this one already has 80 - 98 seats
It has the capacity to add middle units:

Image

But this one already has 199 seats, so nowhere close to the 38 seats average of your government source.

"It comes in a number of variants, including high-floor, low-floor, diesel-mechanical, diesel-hydraulic, diesel-electric, electric, and tilting, and in lengths of two, three, or four carriages. As with most multiple-unit trains, Talent units can run individually, or be coupled together to form longer trains."
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombardier_Talent
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 2272
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 6:24 am

Personal and Business travel is highly over-rated. For the sake of the environment, we should learn to interact with most others from our home, through video conferencing. So money should be spent by the the Govt. to wire every home with HS Internet.
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling
 
Sokes
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 7:45 am

Sokes wrote:
These minor lines are auctioned in Germany for 20 years or so. The government describes the required standards and seating capacity. Ticket price is also fixed. The party who demands the least subsidy gets the contract.

To be precise: The track remains with the government. Only train service is privatized. I don't know if track maintenance is done by rail employees or outsourced. New tracks are built for the railways by private contractors.
Is this system rather socialist or capitalist?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13254
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 8:36 am

Sokes wrote:
Sokes wrote:
These minor lines are auctioned in Germany for 20 years or so. The government describes the required standards and seating capacity. Ticket price is also fixed. The party who demands the least subsidy gets the contract.

To be precise: The track remains with the government.


And the operator has to pay for using it.

Sokes wrote:
A streetcar is a tram in which the tracks are submerged in the road, no separate track. 1,41 $/ passenger mile. Extreme how expensive it is. But then beside traffic lights they stop I believe every 800 km to one km. Still strange. If it's so expensive one may as well use buses. I thought one uses trams because they are cheaper than buses if there is sufficient demand. A rather full bus should actually be quite cheap, even if it stops every 800m.


That cost of per passenger mile is at the provided capacity, so not directly comparable. Tram systems tend to have much better surge capacity build in, that you still have to pay for, and that is largely missing from bus systems. They are after all usually build when providing that surge capacity by bus becomes hard. With the same high capacity busses often come out more expensive, especially if some rail infrastructure is already there.
If busses where macro economically cheaper no tram expansions would be build/systems brought back.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Sokes
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:51 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Tram systems tend to have much better surge capacity build in, that you still have to pay for, and that is largely missing from bus systems. They are after all usually build when providing that surge capacity by bus becomes hard.

Good info. I got curious and read about the Munich tram.
These trams were built 1994 - 1997. They have 60 seating and 97 standing.

Image
source: see next picture

Two lines had one such tram every 3,5 min. Increasing frequency further wasn't possible.
For these two lines a longer variant with 67 seats and 151 standing were ordered. That's roughly 10% more seating, but 50% more standing.

Image
source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9 ... Baureihe_R

17 trams/ hour x 200 passenger/ tram = 3400 passengers/ hour.
Individual traffic may require 2000 cars/ hour capacity.
(3600 seconds/ hour) / (2000 cars/ hour) = 1,8 seconds/ car. Good luck passing so many cars over junctions.
These longer trams were delivered 2000/ 2001. In 2010 a subway opened which now carries some of the former traffic.

It seems trams are useful where buses can't satisfy peak capacity, but there is not enough demand to justify a subway.
I wonder if one tram is cheaper to operate than two buses?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13254
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 12:28 pm

Sokes wrote:
Individual traffic may require 2000 cars/ hour capacity. (3600 seconds/ hour) / (2000 cars/ hour) = 1,8 seconds/ car. Good luck passing so many cars over junctions.
These longer trams were delivered 2000/ 2001. In 2010 a subway opened which now carries some of the former traffic.

It seems trams are useful where buses can't satisfy peak capacity, but there is not enough demand to justify a subway.
I wonder if one tram is cheaper to operate than two buses?


And where the Tram is going, the street is still there and can take cars and busses on top of it, it's just one train every 3.5 minutes after all. And 218 pax isn't even the biggest in Munich, these have 260 pax in double traction, and even with those Munich just uses 2/3 of the permissible vehicle length, so they could conceivably to go ~7000 pax/hour.
Just having one driver instead of two may already tilt the scale in favour or the tram in higher wage places.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6078
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 3:25 pm

DIRECTFLT wrote:
Personal and Business travel is highly over-rated. For the sake of the environment, we should learn to interact with most others from our home, through video conferencing. So money should be spent by the the Govt. to wire every home with HS Internet.


If anything, travel is highly UNDERrated. No video will replace actually seeing.
 
LMP737
Posts: 6042
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:56 pm

PHLspecial wrote:
It is easy to use the Coronavirus to say public transit is dangerous...

Since we are talking about funding in the U.S. currently why not discuss the issue of funding public transit.
Should the U.S. buff it or kill it?
Why is public transit deemed not valuable in the U.S?


I would consider large and medium sized cities for this discussion. We would be talking about local level transit so commuter rail, subways, rapid transit lines such as subways, street cars/trolleys, bus rapid transit, and bus network. Not amtrak.
Buffing transit would have positive economic impact, for every dollar spend on public transit would yield 2/3 times more spending on the economy through direct (buying trains, fuel, etc...) and inducted impact (boosting retail or restaurants).
Killing it would save billions on tax payer money and car finance companies would receive a major boost along with car manufactures
The way U.S. markets itself that its all about efficiency and growing denser in cities that public transit would be rising in usage before the pandemic.


If you were to kill public transit in cities like Chicago or New York those cities would come to a screeching halt. Which would end up costing you billions. Just go to Union Station in Chicago in the morning and late afternoon and you'll see what I mean.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
LMP737
Posts: 6042
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sun Jun 14, 2020 11:58 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
Personal and Business travel is highly over-rated. For the sake of the environment, we should learn to interact with most others from our home, through video conferencing. So money should be spent by the the Govt. to wire every home with HS Internet.


If anything, travel is highly UNDERrated. No video will replace actually seeing.



Well, there's one thing we can agree on.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
acavpics
Posts: 387
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:54 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:02 am

It would be nice to have something like a "West-Coast High Speed Rail" that travels from San Diego all the way to Seattle, or even Vancouver.
And also some frequent train service between the major cities in Texas and Florida.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6078
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 12:23 am

acavpics wrote:
It would be nice to have something like a "West-Coast High Speed Rail" that travels from San Diego all the way to Seattle, or even Vancouver.
And also some frequent train service between the major cities in Texas and Florida.


Way too expensive, as Cali has proved to the cost of, what, $70 billion and no completed rail.
 
Sokes
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:51 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
acavpics wrote:
It would be nice to have something like a "West-Coast High Speed Rail" that travels from San Diego all the way to Seattle, or even Vancouver.
And also some frequent train service between the major cities in Texas and Florida.


Way too expensive, as Cali has proved to the cost of, what, $70 billion and no completed rail.

People in the 19th century built railways. Are railways so complicated or do we make them so complicated? Design for 160 km/ h and one can have one tunnel instead of three and enjoy window view without concern that wind may impact the train. The view from today's high speed trains sucks! The journey is the destination.
How comes for cars one tunnel takes the traffic in both directions, but for rail three tunnels are required?
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6078
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 3:55 am

I was talking with an old civil engineer, his company was one who had construction contracts across the southeast US to build the interstates. Later, his outfit widened I-75 thru Sarasota to Naples. His comment was today, we’d never build the Interstate system, let alone rail. Too much legal blockades, too many environmental laws, too much safety oversight. They spent, adjusted for inflation, more to add two lanes than they did to build the original section. Now, none of that is bad necessarily, but added up, they kill construction results. CT rebuilt a simple Connecticut River bridge, just rebuilding it, nothing huge—5 years. I-84 in CT has been under construction at one time or other for the forth plus years I have driven it.
 
PHLspecial
Topic Author
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:22 am

Sokes wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
Tram systems tend to have much better surge capacity build in, that you still have to pay for, and that is largely missing from bus systems. They are after all usually build when providing that surge capacity by bus becomes hard.

Good info. I got curious and read about the Munich tram.
These trams were built 1994 - 1997. They have 60 seating and 97 standing.

Image
source: see next picture

Two lines had one such tram every 3,5 min. Increasing frequency further wasn't possible.
For these two lines a longer variant with 67 seats and 151 standing were ordered. That's roughly 10% more seating, but 50% more standing.

Image
source: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stra%C3%9 ... Baureihe_R

17 trams/ hour x 200 passenger/ tram = 3400 passengers/ hour.
Individual traffic may require 2000 cars/ hour capacity.
(3600 seconds/ hour) / (2000 cars/ hour) = 1,8 seconds/ car. Good luck passing so many cars over junctions.
These longer trams were delivered 2000/ 2001. In 2010 a subway opened which now carries some of the former traffic.

It seems trams are useful where buses can't satisfy peak capacity, but there is not enough demand to justify a subway.
I wonder if one tram is cheaper to operate than two buses?

This is why I think you see in the U.S. cities are starting to go back to streetcars/light rail.

Good question. I would think it's cheaper to have two buses with dedicated lanes in the cheap oil prices we have. Long term I would pick the trolleys over buses, personally.
Also throw in Bus rapid transit lines!
 
PHLspecial
Topic Author
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:25 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I was talking with an old civil engineer, his company was one who had construction contracts across the southeast US to build the interstates. Later, his outfit widened I-75 thru Sarasota to Naples. His comment was today, we’d never build the Interstate system, let alone rail. Too much legal blockades, too many environmental laws, too much safety oversight. They spent, adjusted for inflation, more to add two lanes than they did to build the original section. Now, none of that is bad necessarily, but added up, they kill construction results. CT rebuilt a simple Connecticut River bridge, just rebuilding it, nothing huge—5 years. I-84 in CT has been under construction at one time or other for the forth plus years I have driven it.

So the U.S. should audit all the current regulations so we can build more efficiently and keep cost down? I mean it should be kept in check. I'm quite worried about the sprawl we have.
 
PHLspecial
Topic Author
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:28 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
Personal and Business travel is highly over-rated. For the sake of the environment, we should learn to interact with most others from our home, through video conferencing. So money should be spent by the the Govt. to wire every home with HS Internet.


If anything, travel is highly UNDERrated. No video will replace actually seeing.

I can attest to this. I am a software engineer but it's sometimes just nicer to have in person interaction. People will always need to move and having a good public transit network in cities will be a massive asset to the cities future development.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2854
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:34 am

PHLspecial wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
I was talking with an old civil engineer, his company was one who had construction contracts across the southeast US to build the interstates. Later, his outfit widened I-75 thru Sarasota to Naples. His comment was today, we’d never build the Interstate system, let alone rail. Too much legal blockades, too many environmental laws, too much safety oversight. They spent, adjusted for inflation, more to add two lanes than they did to build the original section. Now, none of that is bad necessarily, but added up, they kill construction results. CT rebuilt a simple Connecticut River bridge, just rebuilding it, nothing huge—5 years. I-84 in CT has been under construction at one time or other for the forth plus years I have driven it.

So the U.S. should audit all the current regulations so we can build more efficiently and keep cost down? I mean it should be kept in check. I'm quite worried about the sprawl we have.

Disbanding of EPA and OSHA would be a good start. While refunding police is a motto of the day, certain agencies need similar treatment.
With many crazy things Trump did, one must give him plenty of credit for trying to bring EPA to senses. Of course that caused a lot of uproar...
 
PHLspecial
Topic Author
Posts: 652
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:21 pm

kalvado wrote:
Disbanding of EPA and OSHA would be a good start. While refunding police is a motto of the day, certain agencies need similar treatment.
With many crazy things Trump did, one must give him plenty of credit for trying to bring EPA to senses. Of course that caused a lot of uproar...


I mean I don't want the clean water act to go away. I like my rivers not smelling horrible. Police probably should audit themselves as well. They should have enough funds. We could fund other programs to offset the load off police.
Fund public transit should be the motto as well also with public transit agencies should probably spend money better (cough* Septa)
 
kalvado
Posts: 2854
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:48 pm

PHLspecial wrote:
kalvado wrote:
Disbanding of EPA and OSHA would be a good start. While refunding police is a motto of the day, certain agencies need similar treatment.
With many crazy things Trump did, one must give him plenty of credit for trying to bring EPA to senses. Of course that caused a lot of uproar...


I mean I don't want the clean water act to go away. I like my rivers not smelling horrible. Police probably should audit themselves as well. They should have enough funds. We could fund other programs to offset the load off police.
Fund public transit should be the motto as well also with public transit agencies should probably spend money better (cough* Septa)

OSHA private laws are beyond good or bad, for example
As for SEPTA, you may think about it in terms of PA Turnpike sent to bankruptcy just to feed them...
 
Bostrom
Posts: 977
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 7:11 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:05 pm

Sokes wrote:
How comes for cars one tunnel takes the traffic in both directions, but for rail three tunnels are required?


Modern road tunnels usually have two separate tunnels, one for each direction. Where one can be used as an escape route in case of an accident in the other. The same as for rail tunnels.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13254
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:13 pm

Sokes wrote:
tommy1808 wrote:
But there is no reason why you can't run containers at 100mph, while still being efficient, and no real reason why single rail cars can't be delivered to single customers in short order after leaving a main track. As mentioned, the last 10-20 miles could be done autonomously at a desent clip, even if you limit them to a fast walking pace.

Best regards
Thomas

Why would you want to transport containers with 100 mph/ 161 km/ h?


To load stuff in Hamburg in the evening and have it in Munich or Stuttgart early enough for next day delivery... if you want to beat trucks on those medium long haul deliveries you'd need that sort of speed to get the time for offloading if the last miles are by truck. Which could then be efficient on batteries, as they won't need that much range.
InterCargoExpress would be the keyword here, but as DB found out, you need a concept around it.

How to have an autonomous single rail car? Factories with rail access usually have lots of stuff to carry.


Plenty of smaller companies have rail to the premises, but inactive. You could just as well send the five cars autonomously for the last couple of miles of the main. With GSM-R and GPS that would be a heck of a lot easier than autonomous cars.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6078
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 2:14 pm

Bostrom wrote:
Sokes wrote:
How comes for cars one tunnel takes the traffic in both directions, but for rail three tunnels are required?


Modern road tunnels usually have two separate tunnels, one for each direction. Where one can be used as an escape route in case of an accident in the other. The same as for rail tunnels.


A quick example of where safety has greatly increased costs. A look into the actual safety improvement might be in order—probability of tunnel fire, response capability, other less costly alternatives. But, headline tunnel fires drive design, not necessarily actual risk/reward balance. Not saying that is wrong, just how design has evolved. A rich society can afford the cost.

Look at NYC subway construction costs—orders of magnitude more the EU costs.
 
kalvado
Posts: 2854
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:18 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Bostrom wrote:
Sokes wrote:
How comes for cars one tunnel takes the traffic in both directions, but for rail three tunnels are required?


Modern road tunnels usually have two separate tunnels, one for each direction. Where one can be used as an escape route in case of an accident in the other. The same as for rail tunnels.


A quick example of where safety has greatly increased costs. A look into the actual safety improvement might be in order—probability of tunnel fire, response capability, other less costly alternatives. But, headline tunnel fires drive design, not necessarily actual risk/reward balance. Not saying that is wrong, just how design has evolved. A rich society can afford the cost.

Look at NYC subway construction costs—orders of magnitude more the EU costs.

From pure geometric perspective, one tunnel may need to have larger diameter and/or elliptical form to accommodate multiple lanes, so two smaller tunnels may be more cost effective.
As for costs - unions are another issue driving costs up:
http://secondavenuesagas.com/2018/01/01 ... -problems/
In New York, “underground construction employs approximately four times the number of personnel as in similar jobs in Asia, Australia, or Europe,” according to an internal report by Arup, a consulting firm that worked on the Second Avenue subway and many similar projects around the world.
 
airhansa
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2020 3:18 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 4:38 pm

I don't agree that a place like California can make High Speed Rail work. It may have been a winner in the north-east corridor, but California?

A major problem with the US is that there's so little public transport in the first place. How do you get to the train station? Suburbs are large enough that getting to the bus station is a challenge. It requires a very large effort to build the needed local public transport connections. A better option would be to build high speed rail where existing local transportation exists.

Finally the mentality among Europeans and Asians (and Indians) is that public transport is normal and routine. Europeans and Asians usually use public transport to move short distances, so they'll just add on a long distance public transport to that easily. In India it's very common for people to take the train to go insanely long distances over great time periods because that's how they always do things. The US has got a mentality that you use the car to get anything done, so it's hard for any sort of public transport to win a debate about whether you should continue driving a bit further or whether you should go to the hassle of changing from car to public transport.
 
User avatar
DIRECTFLT
Posts: 2272
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 3:00 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 5:47 pm

Sokes wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
acavpics wrote:
It would be nice to have something like a "West-Coast High Speed Rail" that travels from San Diego all the way to Seattle, or even Vancouver.
And also some frequent train service between the major cities in Texas and Florida.


Way too expensive, as Cali has proved to the cost of, what, $70 billion and no completed rail.



People in the 19th century built railways. Are railways so complicated or do we make them so complicated? Design for 160 km/ h and one can have one tunnel instead of three and enjoy window view without concern that wind may impact the train. The view from today's high speed trains sucks! The journey is the destination.
How comes for cars one tunnel takes the traffic in both directions, but for rail three tunnels are required?


In the 19th Century, long distance railroads were built in part by the US Taxpayer, by way of the Federal Govt. land grants to RR builders. The main purpose and function of RR lines is to move freight and not people. After jet airplanes and the Interstate Highway system, the RR operators wanted out of the passenger moving business, hence AMTRAK was created.

With the Trillion dollar expenditure for dedicated passenger rail lines across the country, don't look for passenger rail projects like they have in China, India, Japan and Europe.
Smoothest Ride so far ~ AA A300B4-600R ~~ Favorite Aviation Author ~ Robert J. Serling
 
kalvado
Posts: 2854
Joined: Wed Mar 01, 2006 4:29 am

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:20 pm

airhansa wrote:
I don't agree that a place like California can make High Speed Rail work. It may have been a winner in the north-east corridor, but California?

A major problem with the US is that there's so little public transport in the first place. How do you get to the train station? Suburbs are large enough that getting to the bus station is a challenge. It requires a very large effort to build the needed local public transport connections. A better option would be to build high speed rail where existing local transportation exists.

Finally the mentality among Europeans and Asians (and Indians) is that public transport is normal and routine. Europeans and Asians usually use public transport to move short distances, so they'll just add on a long distance public transport to that easily. In India it's very common for people to take the train to go insanely long distances over great time periods because that's how they always do things. The US has got a mentality that you use the car to get anything done, so it's hard for any sort of public transport to win a debate about whether you should continue driving a bit further or whether you should go to the hassle of changing from car to public transport.

Somehow airports manage to solve that, I don't see why railroads wouldn't.
Many US cities have at least some level of public transportation, and if we're talking about California - San Francisco is definitely one of those cities.
Uber/taxi/shuttles can be another option. Parking near the station - especially if there is a separate stop beyond city limits - may be yet another option.
Idea that public transportation, namely airplane - and not a private car - is a good way to travel long haul is not uncommon in US. Of course, IF the train can provide reasonable competition - and that is a big IF. There are more than 3 million passengers annually choosing Acela.
However, I do have a personal experience of planning 2 hours spare for a regional train ride - and still not making it on time. So before you start blaming mentality, make sure trains arrive at least the same day as they are scheduled.
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13254
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Jun 15, 2020 6:23 pm

kalvado wrote:
airhansa wrote:
I don't agree that a place like California can make High Speed Rail work. It may have been a winner in the north-east corridor, but California?

A major problem with the US is that there's so little public transport in the first place. How do you get to the train station? Suburbs are large enough that getting to the bus station is a challenge. It requires a very large effort to build the needed local public transport connections. A better option would be to build high speed rail where existing local transportation exists.

Finally the mentality among Europeans and Asians (and Indians) is that public transport is normal and routine. Europeans and Asians usually use public transport to move short distances, so they'll just add on a long distance public transport to that easily. In India it's very common for people to take the train to go insanely long distances over great time periods because that's how they always do things. The US has got a mentality that you use the car to get anything done, so it's hard for any sort of public transport to win a debate about whether you should continue driving a bit further or whether you should go to the hassle of changing from car to public transport.

Somehow airports manage to solve that, I don't see why railroads wouldn't.


There also isn't a law preventing higher/high speed rail from having a station at an airport either. Frankfurt airport is also a fairly busy train station for example.

Best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Sokes
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 11:20 am

Railway lines indeed have mostly one or two tunnels. In Germany high speed lines which are used by both passenger and goods trains require two single track tunnels. Thanks for the correction.

And yes, railways are best for goods.

In Germany the very expensive new high speed lines mostly have two or three high speed trains per hour in each direction. Add one regional train. That's not really much.

But maybe I'm too critical. Germany has only Berlin as big city and people from London or Paris wouldn't call it big. Maybe high speed rail does make sense for London, Paris, Tokio...
For Germany I still doubt it.

Till 2030 Germany wants to enable just short of 30 or 60 minutes travel time between different cities which have lot of connections. This is meant to optimise connections. Switzerland is the example to follow.
That sounds much more reasonable than having ten minutes time saving as aim. After all total travel time counts. And who enjoys waiting 20 minutes at a platform? One hour for 140 km is ok. But if two major cities are only 90 km apart high speed rail to make it in 25 minutes and get good connectivity makes sense.

Suburban trains with many stops may have average speed below 50 km/h. To get them on own tracks is the first step to decongest the network and get reliable timings and higher capacity.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
ltbewr
Posts: 15210
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:41 pm

It is going to be interesting to see how much affect the Pandemic will have on mass transit in the medium to long term. Indeed it could face major adjustments of routes and frequency, major cuts in capital expenditures,

Short term, mass transit is devastated as so many fewer people are using due to most workplaces, schools and activities shut down, most office workers do so at home, the near impossibility of sufficient social distancing on mass transit vehicles, the risk to transit workers, collapsed fare incomes by as much as 90%. Many governments will have to cut spending by 20-30% as tax revenues have crashed meaning similar cuts in mass transit subsidies as the economy have collapsed to depression levels Many where possible will use personal cars to limit risks of exposure on mass transit.

Medium term will be bad times for mass transit as more will continue to work from home full or part time, the economic conditions continue to be bad, so lower use of mass transit overall. Government operating and capital subsidies will still be reduced from the loss of tax revenues from the pandemic period have to be paid back and continued reductions in fare box revenues. I suspect reductions in frequency of service, number of cars in light and heavy rail from reduced use and revenues continue.

Long term changes in demand as many will continue to WFH, fewer workers needed as technology continues to advance, some companies shift some workers to satellite offices, especially in less critical functions to lower cost suburbs and small metro areas where personal vehicle are the only practical way to get to/from jobs and other functions of life. Many capital projects will be killed off or delayed indefinitely. Some routes and services will be eliminated or substantially reduced. as government subsidies will be permanently reduced. For sure inter-regional heavy rail in the USA will be affected and likely not expanding but for a few sustainable places.
 
frmrCapCadet
Posts: 4249
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 8:24 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:04 pm

We are public transit fans. The criteria for our current residence included being able to function without driving. We heavily used public transportation - mostly ferry and buses, but occasionally light rail. We did gym and some shopping with a younger relative who liked driving. Now all of those transit are 'off limits', labelled essential trips only, and reduced schedules. We could get by using transit, but it is safer to drive.

I still am suspecting within 2-5 years mostly autonomous car transportation will become common. The next step will be HOV lanes on freeways converted to autonomous only, and will have increased capacities as cars will travel 'entrained'. Rail in the US mostly has unacceptable numbers of grade crossing, the freeway system has none, and with autonomous driving will have enormous capacity. It is controversial but I think we are close to a tipping point.

It is possible that smaller buses will have priority on some of the HOV lanes, say up to 12 passengers, and with the comfort of airline economy plus. Computers will book reservations on the bus that is close to both your origination point and destination, any transfers will be facilitated both for timeliness and ease of the transfer.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
 
tommy1808
Posts: 13254
Joined: Thu Nov 21, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Aug 03, 2020 5:44 am

Sokes wrote:
In Germany the very expensive new high speed lines mostly have two or three high speed trains per hour in each direction. Add one regional train. That's not really much.


that is not much, and not true. Hanover - Frankfurt partially runs at over 110% capacity, most others between 85 and 110%. See Bundesverkehrswegeplan 2030, Page 20.

best regards
Thomas
Well, there is prophecy in the bible after all: 2 Timothy 3:1-6
 
Sokes
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:23 am

tommy1808 wrote:
Sokes wrote:
In Germany the very expensive new high speed lines mostly have two or three high speed trains per hour in each direction. Add one regional train. That's not really much.


that is not much, and not true. Hanover - Frankfurt partially runs at over 110% capacity, most others between 85 and 110%. See Bundesverkehrswegeplan 2030, Page 20.

best regards
Thomas

Your source doesn't say how many trains/ hour run.
There is a pdf "ICE Liniennetz 2020" which is a graphic about the network with ICE frequencies.

What is capacity?
The suburban trains passing through the Munich tunnel drive every two minutes in each direction. They are designed with lots of big doors and have around 20 kW/ t. In comparison ICE1 has around 10,7 kW/ t and ICE3 15,5 kW/ t. More power and a sine wave tunnel helps to accelerate fast. I believe for normal trains max capacity is one train every five or six minutes each direction. But that is only true if all trains have equal speed.
100 % capacity means different trains at different speeds have enough tollerance to avoid delays. So if trains from two directions share one track close to the city and one has to account for delays the railway may want to plan with I guess 10 minutes in between. If suburban trains also use the track and another train with triple the average speed comes along one has to keep a long gap in between these two trains, unless the slow train can wait 5 minutes somewhere to be overtaken.
Goods train can wait to be overtaken, but then they take time to reach speed again.

Capacity is huge in theory, but I think 120 trains/ direction and day in mixed traffic is already quite congested. Munich suburban trains do this in four hours.
Interesting is really capacity in the rush hour. Removing goods trains doesn't
help that much if suburban and long distance trains share one track.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12968
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Mon Aug 03, 2020 9:24 am

Anyone interested in this topic should watch

https://youtu.be/p-I8GDklsN4

It's disgusting what you did and how badly it's affected every corner of the US, and the Koch brothers are still at it today.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... light-rail
 
Sokes
Posts: 1646
Joined: Sat Mar 09, 2019 4:48 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 3:31 am

Kiwirob wrote:
Anyone interested in this topic should watch

https://youtu.be/p-I8GDklsN4

I like that primary teacher:
"I came here just to listen... "
Because I'm a woman.
"Can't you see that these highways mean a whole new way of life for the children? "

No I can't. Can you expand, for so far you haven't said anything.
But here already the second woman claps enthusiastic. No time to think about this question.

But I guess also no need, for the majority just wants to get told their opinion anyway.
Contradicting evidence is a pleasure for the trained thinker and a nuisance for most others.
How many conservatives read books from the political left and vice versa?

I admit for street car users this brainwash can't work, for they are experts in the field. But what about all those who are not experts?

Conspiracy theories are not very popular here. Good luck convincing people.
Why can't the world be a little bit more autistic?
 
Kiwirob
Posts: 12968
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:16 pm

Re: Public Transit in the U.S. Buff it or kill it?

Thu Aug 06, 2020 8:27 am

Sokes wrote:
Kiwirob wrote:
Anyone interested in this topic should watch

https://youtu.be/p-I8GDklsN4

I like that primary teacher:
"I came here just to listen... "
Because I'm a woman.
"Can't you see that these highways mean a whole new way of life for the children? "

No I can't. Can you expand, for so far you haven't said anything.
But here already the second woman claps enthusiastic. No time to think about this question.

But I guess also no need, for the majority just wants to get told their opinion anyway.
Contradicting evidence is a pleasure for the trained thinker and a nuisance for most others.
How many conservatives read books from the political left and vice versa?

I admit for street car users this brainwash can't work, for they are experts in the field. But what about all those who are not experts?

Conspiracy theories are not very popular here. Good luck convincing people.


This wasn't a conspiracy theory, this actually happened in cities across the US, it's a proven fact.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ArchGuy1, Kent350787, Newark727, prebennorholm, T18 and 59 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos